Couple of "Human Evolution" Questions (Seriously), If I May...

by AGuest 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  thetrueone

  But it is my understanding of logic (coupled with what I hear from my Lord) that makes me reject human evolution.

  Well if your lord has told you that mankind's hasn't evolved to the state he is in now.

  Why bother asking mere mortals, your going to block out any information you receive from us anyways.

  Your presenting a loaded question.

  Some of are species developed a larger brain that has the capability and possibility to apply critical thinking skills,

  unfortunately some do not take advantage of this inherent capability.

  Sadly there is variance to evolution.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  Unfortunately, I assume folks would know what I meant... but given the tendency for pendanticy (sp?) as to this subject I should have known better and been more careful.

  I still don't know what you mean. Can you tell me how humans are different from animals in a meaningful way that would effect evolution? Drugs that people use everyday were tested on certain animals precisley because biologically they are so similiar to us.

  I'm not attacking you, I really don't understand how you can think that animals evolve and people are animals, but not the kind that evolves.

  Also, I purposefully excluded "racial" evolution because, regardless of our race, we are still the same species

  1. Evolution doesn't care about "race" (which is a specious ill defined term anyway, like "kinds" when dealing with animals

  2. Evolution doesn't mean "different species" either. It means "changes over time that lend themsevles to survival".

  3. If you believe in animal evolution and that somehow wolves produced german shepards and poodles, then how is that any different that black/white/asian?

  The color of both of our skin has a VERY specific survial trait, historically speaking. As does my European genetic predisposition to hemochromatosis and your African genetic predisposition to sickle cell. Both deadly, both geographically specific (before mass rapid transit). They are racially specific because, again, prior to mass rapid transit, your race had VERY much to do with your geography. Evolution select for both homochromatosis and sickle cell. That seems counter-intuitive, though. Why would evolution select a trait that will kill you at 40? Because it will keep you alive at 20.

  Also, I believe that, given time... and current and progressive trends... the human race would "evolve" to one race... made up of all races... anyway... so that there would no longer be individual, separated races.

  I both agree and disagree. "Race" is simply a modern phenotype expression of historical evolutionary pressures (meaning, we look the way we look because our ancestors lived in different places and evolved differently in response to different evolutionary pressures). I agree in the sense that, yes, due to the ability for me to be in Hawaii or Africa or Russia tomorow should I choose, and due to intermarrying of people with different geographical backgrounds, yes, they will get mingled to a large extent to where we will, as a species, largely be a very nice caramel color that tans wonderfully.

  THAT, to me, would be about the only evolutionary process (other than intellectual) that I could say IS occurring. Since it is by human CHOICE, however, I am not sure how "natural" it is; again, seems to me that if man is consciously involved and can/does manipulate the outcome, it's actually artificial.

  By choice? I don't think there is a large scale choice by people to purposefully intermarry among a different "race", but, because of places like NYC, LA, Chicago, etc., and the gradual social equalization that is occuring, it is simply becoming more common. I don't know that is a choice creating "artificial evolution" any more than the choice of people to migrate out of Africa into northern europe and, similarly, respond to different evolutionary pressures than their ancestors back home had to was creating "aritificial evolution"

  what is "natural" vs. "artificial" evolution in your mind?
• 

  VoidEater

  I'll play...

  1. Are we still physically evolving (as the "evidence", if true, would logically indicate we would be)?

  Sure, why not? Since changes seem to be random events over a long period of time, it would be very difficult to find evidence that it is or is not taking place. Some of the evidence that seems to suggest "recent" evolution are the "vestigial" structures we carry.

  b. If so...

  (1) HOW, logically, are we still evolving? (Please note, man being able to clone parts or even full humans is NOT evolution, in the sense that that word suggests natural progression based on a need to survice... because it is man-induced and thus artificial. Thus, while I agree that it is INTELLECTUAL evolution, I would ask that you explain how it is NATURAL evolution.)

  If we understoof the "how" we wouldn't be having this conversation. It seems that it could be mere mutation that provides an advantage for an individual (or group of individuals), that then breeds true. If you mean to ask about the effects of current evolution, as noted above these events are rare over a long period of time - I don't know that we can point to anything that categorically is evolution. Longer life, taller bodies, more obese kids - these can all be environmental effects (which, in their own way, may in fact be producin evolution...).

  (2) WHAT, logically, are we involving into? What is/could/must be "next"? (Note, while "next" could involve things like flying or being able to swim underwater without an apparatus, wouldn't the second suggest, logically, a de-volution - i.e., back to the "soup" - and wouldn't, logically, both have to involve some kind of "mating" with another species that can already fly/swim... which I don't deny could occur due to some experiment in a petrie dish but, again, logically, would require intervention by humans, thus, being "artificial" as opposed to natural?)

  We will evolve into whatever lives more effectively in a changing environment - whatever that next environment may be.

  Finally...

  2. If we are still evolving, wouldn't evolving into a species that surpasses the physical body, surpasses being limited by the physical world, its laws and confines... and the requirements and needs of the physical body... be the ultimate station? I mean, logically? Wouldn't evolving to the point where the body doesn't need to eat, sleep, pee, poop, breath air, use apparati to fly, swim, etc., to be limited to a set space... logically, be the ultimate?

  Speciation would be quite an abrupt evolutionary leap that seems to be very rare in recent millenia (perhaps over all time). Remember, evolution is not a preprogrammed leap to something we aspire to, but rather the reinforcement of aberrant traits that succeed in the current environment. No more, no less. Evolution is "blind". It our environment changes to that of the vacuum of space, then those humans that have traits that survive space better will survive. Given time for the change, in the environment and our evolutionary response to it.

  And if so... isn't that what spirit beings already experience... so that being a spirit (free) being IS the ultimate "evolution" of man?

  I generally like SF that posits an evolutionary path to the shrugging off of the mantal of flesh. But that's not what evolution is about.

  And if so... isn't that the "evolution" held out by Christ... to "change" the physical body to a spirit(ual) body?

  Christ holds out transformation of the human heart to me. Not physcial transmigration. Your mileage may vary.

  And if so... why is it feasible, even logical, to imagine man getting man to this point, perhaps through science... but NOT through a man who has already achieved this goal... is already a spirit "man"... and thus has already experienced the ultimate? Could it perhaps be because man... has lied to man... about HOW to achieve this... and through whom... because HE doesn't know... because he refuses to entertain that it just might NOT be through "scientific" (as we understand that term) means?

  I believe Christ was talking about how to transform your experience and awareness of living in a fleshly body. This is not a conversation about evolution but rather philosophy.
• 

  AGuest

  My clarification above, aside (peace to you who've responded), if I respond this will lead to debate, even contentious argument and that TRULY was not my intent. I really did want to know what you thought/believe/is taught on the matter. I came "correct"... with no "argument" but only my thoughts, understanding, and belief. On the other hand, if I don't respond... especially to direct confrontational comments or direct questions, then there will be accusations of hidden agreement (although nothing posted yet has resulted in that; to the contrary, actually) or further deceit on my part.

  Unfortunately, I am going to have to take your comments in stride and let your questions go, for now. Truly, I just want your comments, and I only clarified as I did because of course I realize humans are animals (as we think of animals)... and I don't agree that race is a result of evolution... as we understand that theory (natural selection - there is no one race that is superior to the other such that, ultimately, it will out-survive all of the others... without some kind of artificial intervention, like a nuclear holocaust. Not the way the world is going, at least. "Cause even if that used to be the case, which I don't believe - westernization will remove that possibility).

  BUT... make your comments, please. And again, I'm not making an argument. I'm not even asking you to make one. I posed some questions (which I am not alone in wondering about) and simply asked for your comments and the logic behind it (so, "Because it just is/we just are" isn't really a response, IMHO). So, let's keep it to that, shall we? I mean, if you can bring yourself to do so.

  (Oh, BTW - If some of you were university professors, I would probably drop your class. Not because of the content of your lecture... but your delivery. While I don't necessarily need you to be "nice" in your delivery, I would expect to you treat me with some consideration, since I came to YOU and asked YOU to help me understand what YOU believe... and honestly, forthrightly... and sincerely... shared with you what I believe. I am sure you would probably drop my class, too, if you even bothered to sign up for it. I would bother to sign up for yours; just can't say I would complete more than the first hour of it. And that's really a shame.)

  Again, peace to you all!

  A slave of Christ,

  SA
• 

  cyberjesus

  we are evolving... we keep changing physiologically and intellectually. The goal of evolution is to survive and reproduce by whatever means it can... thats why we evolve, we adapt as to survive and thats why we have so many different species.

  How come you dont notice we are evolving? because our life is very minuscule fraction of the process. You will not see evolution of humans as if they will grow a 6th finger on the spot... but if you study how we have been changing you will notice how we are not the same..

  Wisdom teeth are a fine example... They will dissapear, eventually we wont have them anymore.. In the past everybody had them... We live longer. We will never evolve in to a ghost... because ghosts can not exist with our physical laws.. evolution happens within the framework of the laws....

  But even within that framework there are sooo many fantastic changes that definetely seem to be divine.... just think how we evolve from an embryo into an adult, into an old person, into dust again.

  Great questions... now ponder on the answers.
• 

  EntirelyPossible

  On the other hand, if I don't respond... especially to direct confrontational comments or direct questions, then there will be accusations of hidden agreement (although nothing posted yet has resulted in that; to the contrary, actually) or further deceit on my part.

  Well, no. I just can't accurately convey my comments if I don't have an accurate understand of your thoughts and what I am responding to. Nothing more or less.

  I don't agree that race is a result of evolution

  It is very true, regardless of whether or not you believe it or not. Allow me to give you an example.Or two.

  Africans have dark skin, are much likely to get bitten by a malaria infected mosquito and have a high risk for sickle cell anemia (moreso in Africa than the US). Those two things are directly related to evolutionary pressures due to geography. The dark skin is due to an abundance of eumelanin, which prevents the skin from absorbing as much UV radiation from the sun and protects against cancer. Since our bodies can naturally synthesize vitamin D from the UV rays from the sun, blocking those would create a fatal vitamin D deficiency. BUT, there is also genetic mutation that allows Africans to synthesize vitamin D from cholesterol in food (something white people cannot do) because they natually block the UV rays in the sunlight. This is why you see three things happen (we're getting back to the mosquito in a minute). One, the further away from the equator a population historically has lived, the lighter their skin is due to a dimished need to block UV rays in sunlight and an increased need to absorb enough UV rays to create the vitamin D. Two, the LESS likely they are to have the genetic mutation that allows them to synthesize cholesterol into vitamin D. Three, Africans that live in an area with typically cholesterol loaded diets (like the southern US) are MUCH LESS likely to suffer heart disease and high cholesterol than their white neighbors eating the same diet next door. All because of evolution based on geography of their ancestors.

  Interestingly, the above ALSO means that white people are the mutants, "racially" speaking. We are black people that mutated into white people. That's why "race" means nothing to me.

  So, the mosquito. What does that have to do with anything? The genetic mutation that causes sickle cell anemia (under the right (well, wrong) conditions) ALSO protects against malaria. Interestingly, sickle cell anemia among African Americas is steadily falling as compared to Africans still living in Africa. Why? Because while sickle cell would kill you at 40, it would save your life at 10 if you lived in Africa and give you the chance to reproduce. African Americans are not really at risk of being bitten by a malaria infected mosquito and THEREFORE sickle cell is no longer a survival advantage. Evolution is weeding it out.

  The same thing happens with Europeans and hemochomatosis, a genetic disease that will kill you at 40. Why would evolution select for it? Because it ALSO made Europeans four times more likely to either not contract or survive the black death. Sure, it will kill them at 40, but it would save them at 10.

  ... as we understand that theory (natural selection - there is no one race that is superior to the other such that, ultimately, it will out-survive all of the others.

  Don't think of "race" like people usually do. Think of it as "how we evolved due to where our ancestors lived". Its got NOTHING to do with superiority or out-surviving all others. It has to do with evolution based on where you live. See my above comment. Race is nothing more than "genetics due to historic evolutionary pressures".

  Oh, BTW - If some of you were university professors, I would probably drop your class. Not because of the content of your lecture... but your delivery. While I don't necessarily need you to be "nice" in your delivery, I would expect to you treat me with some consideration, since I came to YOU and asked YOU to help me understand what YOU believe... and honestly, forthrightly... and sincerely... shared with you what I believe.

  You would probably be kicked out. I say that because you started the post off asking for everything in simple laymans terms. If you go to a math professor and ask him to explain statistics and said "but don't use fancy university words like probability distribution or stochastic processes, keep it simple" like you want to do on science, you would not be allowed back because you don't REALLY want to learn.

  If you want to learn, then dammit, learn from the professor. Otherwise he has real students that want to learn something.
• 

  TheClarinetist

  I would like to add that even though humans are still evolving, as is logically necessary if you accept evolution, even of the animals, it is doubtful at this point that we would speciate(?), because that would require reproductive isolation. Had technology not progressed to where it is today, it would be likely that the Native Americans, Africans, and tribal peoples of Australia would have developed into different species separate from what we will eventually evolve into.

  Its also possible that the human race may stagnate as far as evolution is concerned, or evolve randomly. Natural selection is not nearly as large of a factor as it used to be... We try as a species to limit it as much as possible because of fear of death. I sometimes wish I had a time machine so that I could go into the future and find out what we become.
• 

  lovelylil

  AGUEST,

  Perhaps this information may be helpful, it is taken from here; http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

  Q3. Does evolution contradict creationism?

  There are two parts to creationism. Evolution, specifically common descent, tells us how life came to where it is, but it does not say why. If the question is whether evolution disproves the basic underlying theme of Genesis, that God created the world and the life in it, the answer is no. Evolution cannot say exactly why common descent chose the paths that it did.

  If the question is whether evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of the first chapter of Genesis as an exact historical account, then it does. This is the main, and for the most part only, point of conflict between those who believe in evolution and creationists.

  Q4. If evolution is true, then isn't the whole Bible wrong?

  First let me repeat that the underlying theme of the first book of Genesis can't be scientifically proven or disproven. No test has ever been found that can tell the difference between a universe created by God, and one that appeared without Him. Only certain interpretations of Genesis can be disproven.

  Second, let us turn the question around. What if I asked you "If the story of the prodigal son didn't really happen, then is the whole Bible wrong?" Remember that the Bible is a collection of both stories and historical accounts. Because one part is a figurative story does not make the entire Bible so. Even if it did, the underlying message of the Bible would remain.

  3. Evolution and God

  Q5. Does evolution deny the existence of God?

  No. See question 1. There is no reason to believe that God was not a guiding force behind evolution. While it does contradict some specific interpretations of God, especially ones requiring a literal interpretation of Genesis 1, few people have this narrow of a view of God.

  There are many people who believe in the existence of God and in evolution. Common descent then describes the process used by God. Until the discovery of a test to separate chance and God this interpretation is a valid one within evolution.

  Q6. But isn't this Deism, the belief that God set the universe in motion and walked away?

  While it could be Deism, the Bible speaks more of an active God, one who is frequently intervening in His creation. If the Bible represents such a God in historical times there is no reason to assume that He was not active in the universe before then. A guiding hand in evolution could exist, even in the time before humans came around. Just because people were not there to observe does not mean that there was nothing to observe.

  Q7. So if God directed evolution, why not just say he created everything at once?

  Mainly because all the evidence suggests otherwise. If God created the universe suddenly, he created it in a state that is indistinguishable from true age. If he did create it that way there must be a reason, otherwise God is a liar. Whatever that reason may be, a universe that is exactly like one that is old should be treated as if it were old.

  Q8. By denying creation, aren't you denying God's power to create?

  No. Because God did not create the world in seven days does not mean that he couldn't. What did, or did not, happen is not an indication of what could, or could not, have happened. All evidence suggests that evolution is the way things happened. Regardless of what could have happened, the evidence would still point to evolution.
• 

  Black Sheep

  Within order ...... is chaos.

  No two animals are exactly the same, just as no two snowflakes are exactly the same, just as no two humans are exactly the same, just no two galaxies are exactly the same.

  Order is chaos.

  How can we not evolve?
• 

  Farkel

  shel,

  Since the "person" you mentioned in your thread was obvsiouly me, I felt it incumbant upon me to respond. However, after a cursory reading of the posts preceding mine, there is not much, if anything I could add. It's already been said.

  :1. Are we still physically evolving (as the "evidence", if true, would logically indicate we would be)?

  Think "adapting" instead of "evolving." Sometimes adapting can involve evolving, but sometimes it just means "changing" to survive new circumstances. Losing body hair over eons isn't necessarily "better" in the sense of evolving. It just means that due to circumstances body hair is no longer necessary.

  : (1) HOW, logically, are we still evolving?

  Beats me. Evolutionary changes take millenia. There is lots of empirical evidence why land animals took to sea and sea animals took to land and other animals took to the air and that evidence is instantly available for you to review.

  : (2) WHAT, logically, are we involving into?

  You mean "evolving", don't you? Well, we might very well go extinct if we can not adapt to whatever changes are ahead. Millions of species of animals and plants have gone extinct over the millenia for that very reason.

  As I've told you many times, evolution and a Creator are not mutually exclusive. I'm certainly not going to reject the notion of a Creator who set everything in motion and then perhaps "guides" adaptation in such a way so that we are today what a Creator wanted us to be for today.

  And I'm certainly not going to reject the notion that such a Creator might have in mind for us to evolve or adapt into purely spiritual beings at some future time.

  For now, though, I'm more concerned with getting through each day than trying to second-guess the intentions of the Creator of the cosmos, UNLESS that same Creator can get me laid, or something.

  Since you scored so well in logic, I will give you a little syllogism teaser. As you must know, a syllogism is the simplest form of a logical argument, which is comprised of two assumptions and a conclusion which must necessarily be derived if the two assumptions are presumed to be true. In my syllogism, both assumptions are true, AND the conclusion is also true. The problem is, the argument is NOT a logical argument. Tell me why.

  Here goes:

  "Wells Fargo is a financial institution." (true)

  "All banks are financial institutions." (true)

  "Therefore, Wells Fargo is a bank." (true)

  Where is the fallacy in that argument?

  (Hugs and smooches to my long-time friend)

  Farkel, With a Little Sparkle